1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner. rule. rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for respective parties. learned counsel mrs.deshmukh waives service of rule on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2. rest of the respondents, though served, are absent. 2. this writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.08.2009, passed by 4th joint civil judge, senior division, ahmednagar, below application exhibit-28 in regular civil suit no. 368/2007, and order dated .17.07.2010, passed by 5th joint civil judge, senior division, ahmednagar, below application exhibit-44 in regular civil suit no.368/2007. 3. the background facts of the case are as under: petitioner herein is original defendant no.1 in regular civil suit no.368/2007 filed by respondent no.1 herein. petitioner is son of respondent no.1, respondent no.2 is real brother of petitioner. respondents no.3 to 5 are real sisters of respondent no.1. there is no dispute about relationship between the parties. 4. it is the case of the petitioner that present respondent no.3 - krushnabai vasantrao jagtap filed regular civil suit no. 324/1998 in the court of civil judge, junior division, ahmednagar. the suit was filed for partition and separate possession in respect of agricultural lands bearing g.nos.304, 391, 86, 392, 396 and 401, situate at village jakhangaon, taluka and district ahmednagar. it is the case of the petitioner that sindhubai - respondent no.1 herein was original defendant no .....

rule. rule made returnable forthwith. with the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. this writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 14/08/2012 passed below exhibit-5 in regular civil suit no.408 of 2012 by joint civil judge, senior division, osmanabad which is confirmed by the adhoc district judge-1, osmanabad in misc. civil appeal no.100 of 2012 by its judgment and order dated 23/09/2013. 3. the petitioners herein, are the original plaintiffs. the plaintiffs who are brothers inter-se have filed r.c.s. no.408 of 2012 for declaration that, they are the owners of the suit properties described in schedule 'a' to 'c' in para-1 of the plaint by virtue of sale deed dated 04/02/1953. they have also sought for a declaration that, defendant no.1 municipal council is a rank trespasser on the suit properties described in schedule 'b' and 'c' and further declaration that, construction of building of shopping malls on the said schedule 'b' and 'c' properties are illegal and none of the defendants have any right to own, occupy or possess the suit properties. they have also prayed for a mandatory injunction against defendant no.1 for removal of encroachment on suit schedule 'b' and 'c' properties by demolishing building etc., and for handing over vacant and peaceful possession of said two properties. the plaintiffs have also prayed for a perpetual prohibitory injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with or .....

1. the appeal is filed against judgment and decree of regular civil appeal no. 40/1999, which was pending in the court of 2nd ad-hoc additional district judge, shrirampur, district ahmednagar. the first appeal was filed by plaintiffs of regular civil suit no. 520/1991, which was pending in the court of civil judge, junior division, shrirampur for relief of partition and separate possession of joint hindu family properties. the suit was dismissed by the trial court. the first appellate court has set aside the decision of trial court and has given the relief of partition and possession in favour of plaintiffs. the defendants have challenged the decision. both the sides are heard. 2. it is the case of plaintiffs that one bapuji sathe was common ancestor of plaintiffs and defendants. bapuji had two sons by name ramkrushna and shivram. the plaintiffs are successors of shivram and defendants are successors of ramkrushna. 3. it is the case of plaintiffs that after the death of bapuji, joint hindu family properties left behind by bapuji, were entered in the name of ramkrushna in the revenue record as he was elder between the two sons of bapuji. it is contended that ramkrushna died on 20.9.1977. 4. it is contended that after the death of ramkrushna on 20.9.1977, the defendants like defendant no. 1, widow of ramkrushna, took steps to enter the names of only successors of ramkrushna in the record of rights. it is contended that when the properties were joint hindu family properties, the .....

j u d g m e n t :1. this petition is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the additional commissioner, nashik division, nashik, dated 30.07.1992 in appeal no.lnd369/82, which is at annexure "f" to the petition.2. it is case of the petitioner that the suit land is comprised in survey no. 16, admeasuring 18 acres 6 gunthas and pot kharab 20 gunthas, assessed at rs. 19.94 ps., situated at village sheri, tal. jamner, dist. jalgaon. it is case of the petitioner that the suit land was allotted to the father of respondent no.1. i.e. trimbak supun belpatre on an inalienable and impartible tenure, by the subdivisional officer, chalisgaon, in the year 1963. after death of trimbak, his son i.e. respondent no.1 has entered into an agreement of sale of the suit land with the petitioner in the year 196364 and in view of the said agreement of sale, the petitioner was put in possession of the suit land in the year 196465.3. according to the terms of agreement of sale on 21.06.1963, respondent no.1 has filed application to the collector, jalgaon for seeking permission to sell the suit land to the petitioner. the statement of respondent no.1 was recorded by the circle officer, shendurni and in the said statement respondent no.1 has admitted that he has filed application on 21.06.1963 to the collector, jalgaon for permission to sell suit land to the petitioner.4. it is case of the petitioner that the collector, jalgaon, suo moto started enquiry as to why the suit land should not .....

this writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the maharashtra revenue tribunal, camp jalgaon, at bombay dated 2nd august, 1991 in no. rev.trb.88 of 1986. 2. the background facts as disclosed in the petition for filing this writ petition are as under: the petitioner herein is the resident of village rozode, taluka raver district jalgaon. the suit land is comprised in survey no. 12/1 admeasuring 0 hector 98 ares situated at village savkhede khd., taluka raver district jalgaon. the suit land was previously held and owned by deceased fakira daula tadvi, deceased kasam daula tadvi and deceased chandkha daula tadvi and they have sold the suit land to shri. lotu iccharam fagade of rozode on 15th september, 1967 for consideration of rs.3500/- and corresponding mutation entry no. 875 was mutated on 20th october, 1967. thereafter, the petitioner herein purchased the suit land from shri. lotu iccharam fagade in the year 1972 for consideration of rs.40,000/- and corresponding mutation entry no. 880 was mutated in the revenue record on 2nd august, 1972. it is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner has improved the land by spending thousands of rupees and has converted dry land into bagayat land. the suit land is now consolidated into gat no. 60. 3. it is the case of the petitioner that, initially on the basis of an application filed by fakira daula tadvi and others, the assistant collector started an inquiry under section 3 of the maharashtra .....

this appeal from order takes exception to the judgment and order dated 15th february, 2012 in regular civil appeal no. 358 of 2001 passed by the adhoc district judge-2, nanded. by the impugned judgment and order, the lower appellate court has remanded the matter back to the trial court by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 9th december, 2001 passed by the joint civil judge, junior division, nanded in r.c.s. no. 302 of 1998 with direction to decide the suit afresh by taking into consideration issue nos. 1 to 8 framed by the lower appellate court. 2. an order of remand passed under order 41, rule 23a is amenable to appeal under order 43 rule 1(u) of the code of civil procedure, can only be heard on the grounds enumerated in section 100 of the code of civil procedure, as held by the supreme court in the case of narayanan vs. kumaran and others reported in (2004) 4 scc 26 and in the case of jegannathanvs. raju sigamani and another reported in 2012(5) mh.l.j. 1. 3. the learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited my attention to the substantial questions of law/grounds taken in the appeal from order and submitted that, the lower appellate court has only framed two points for its consideration. in fact, all the relevant points should have been framed by the lower appellate court for its consideration/determination. it is submitted that, order 14 rule 1 of the code of civil procedure contemplates framing of issues. the issues arise when a material .....

oral judgment: heard learned app for appellant - state and learned counsel appearing for respondent. 2. the state questions acquittal of respondent in special case no.9 of 1998 for offence under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of prevention of corruption act dated 31st august, 2001 by learned addl. sessions judge / special judge, ambajogai. 3. leave was granted on 26th september, 2003. appeal was admitted and paper book was dispensed with. 4. the prosecution case was, rohidas, uncle of complainant, had purchased 2 acres land from survey no.52 of village chinchpur. he handed over copy of sale deed and urged the respondent to take mutation in revenue record and issue 7/12 extract. the accused, allegedly, demanded amount of rs.1,000/-, it was negotiated and settled at rs.500/-. said rohidas paid rs.200/- to accused, the accused called rohidas after 15-20 days. on 14th july, 1997, rohidas inquired with accused whether, work was done. as stated earlier, amount of rs.200/- was received by accused and balance amount was to be sent to him through complainant, and then, accused assured to issue 7/12 extract to rohidas. on 19th july, 1997, complainant approached the office of anti corruption bureau, report was recorded and trap was decided to be laid. 5. on 21st july, 1997, pre-trap formalities were completed. thereafter, police party with panch proceeded to the office of accused. the complainant inquired the accused about his work and accused, allegedly, demanded balance .....

[1] by the present criminal revision application, the applicants are challenging the judgment and order dated 30th september, 2000 passed by the learned addl.sessions judge, ahmednagar in cri.revn.appln.no.31 of 2000, by which the learned revisional court was pleased to partly allowed the cri.revision filed on behalf of the present respondent / husband and denied the maintenance to present applicant no.1 ?? dwarkabai / wife. [2] applicant no.1 - dwarkabai and respondent ?? sambhaji are the wife and husband. applicant nos. 2 and 3 are their children. in the year 1998, the present applicants were required to approach in the court of the judicial magistrate, [f.c.], shevgaon, dist. ahmednagar u/section 125 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 for grant of monthly maintenance allowance; since the respondent refused and neglected to maintain them. they claimed maintenance allowance @ rs.500/- per month for applicant no.1 ?? dwarkabai and @ rs.200/- per month for applicant nos. 2 and 3. said application was registered as cri.m.a.no.59 of 1992. said criminal application was opposed by the respondent. parties adduced their respective evidence. [3] upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned judicial magistrate, [f.c.], shevgaon found that the applicants succeeded to establish that the respondent refused and neglected to maintain them. the learned trial court found that, the applicants were unable to maintain themselves and the respondent was found to be a person having .....

1. heard. the appellant has filed the present appeal against judgment and order dated 12th january, 2016 passed by district judge-1, beed in regular civil appeal no.50/2015. 2. the appellant had filed regular civil suit no.499/2014 for partition against his father and brothers claiming his 1/4th share alleging that father and brothers had refused to give him his share in the suit properties. in the aforesaid suit, compromise took place between the parties and on the basis of the said compromise-deed, the aforesaid civil suit came to be decreed by the learned trial court. 3. present respondent nos. 1 to 3, who were not party to the aforesaid suit, filed regular civil appeal no. 50/2015 assailing the judgment and decree dated 29th december, 2014 passed by the trial court. it was the contention of these respondents that along with the plaintiff and defendants in the subject suit, they also possess share in the suit properties and as such without there presence in the said suit, impugned decree could not h ave been passed merely on consent of the plaintiff and defendants therein. the appellant appeared in the appeal filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 and resisted the same. the appellant denied the claim of the respondents that they have share in the suit properties and also objected to filing of the appeal by respondent nos. 1 to 3 on the ground of its maintainability. it was the contention of the present appellant before the first appellate court that the decree passed by the trial .....

1. this civil revision application is filed, challenging the judgment and order dated 16th april, 2004 in special dharkhast no. 50 of 2003 passed by the learned civil judge, senior division, sangamner, dist. ahmednagar.2. the respondent nos. 4,5 & 6 filed regular civil suit no. 10 of 2001, before the civil judge, senior division, sangamner, dist. ahmednagar, for partition and separate possession and for perpetual injunction and for the property land bearing survey no. 41/1a/1, admeasuring 21 r of village mangalapur, tqhasil sangamer, dist. ahmednagar. the notices were served upon all the defendants to the suit. on 27th june, 2001 the said civil suit no. 10 of 2001 was decided against the respondent nos. 1 and 3 exparte, whereas against the respondent no. 2 without written statement suit was proceeded. by judgment and order dated 26th june, 2001, the said suit came to be decreed. the special dharkhast bearing no. 26 of 2002, was filed by respondent balasaheb, seeking partition and separation of his share as per terms of decree. the notices in respect of special dharkhast no. 26 of 2002 were served on all the concerned parties to the said proceedings, but inspite of this fact, the respondent no. 1 herein had neither appeared nor filed his say. the special dharkhast no. 26 of 2002, came to be executed by the collector, ahmednagar, and the shares has been allotted to the parties and possession was also delivered to the respondent no. 2 of his share, and his name was recorded in .....